Test-Retest Variability and Discriminatory Power of Measurements From Microperimetry and Dark Adaptation Assessment in People With Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration - A MACUSTAR Study Report

• Published in: Translational vision science & technology Vol. 12; no. 7; p. 19
• Main Authors: Higgins, Bethany E, Montesano, Giovanni, Dunbar, Hannah M P, Binns, Alison M, Taylor, Deanna J, Behning, Charlotte, Abdirahman, Amina, Schmid, Matthias C, Terheyden, Jan H, Zakaria, Nadia, Poor, Stephen, Finger, Robert P, Leal, Sergio, Holz, Frank G, Rubin, Gary S, Luhmann, Ulrich F O, Crabb, David P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 21.07.2023
• Subjects: Cross-Sectional Studies; Dark Adaptation; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Retina; Visual Field Tests
• ISSN: 2164-2591; 2164-2591
• DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.7.19

The purpose of this study was to assess test-retest variability and discriminatory power of measures from macular integrity assessment (S-MAIA) and AdaptDx. This is a cross-sectional study of 167 people with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD), no AMD (controls; n = 54), early AMD (n = 28), and late AMD (n = 41), recruited across 18 European ophthalmology centers. Repeat measures of mesopic and scotopic S-MAIA average (mean) threshold (MMAT decibels [dB] and SMAT [dB]) and rod intercept time (RIT [mins]) at 2 visits 14 (±7) days apart were recorded. Repeat measures were assessed by Bland-Altman analysis, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and variability ratios. Secondary analysis assessed the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) to determine the ability to distinguish people as having no AMD, early AMD, or iAMD. Data were available for 128, 131, and 103 iAMD participants for the mesopic and scotopic S-MAIA and AdaptDx, respectively. MMAT and SMAT demonstrate similar test-retest variability in iAMD (95% confidence interval [CI] ICC of 0.79-0.89 and 0.78-0.89, respectively). ICCs were worse in RIT (95% CI ICC = 0.55-0.77). All tests had equivalent AUCs (approximately 70%) distinguishing between subjects with iAMD and controls, whereas early AMD was indistinguishable from iAMD on all measures (AUC = <55%). A learning effect was not seen in these assessments under the operating procedures used. MMAT, SMAT, and RIT have adequate test-retest variability and are all moderately good at separating people with iAMD from controls. Expected levels of test-retest variability and discriminatory power of the AdaptDx and MAIA devices in a clinical study setting must be considered when designing future trials for people with AMD.